If we had the perfect source of energy...

[Ctrl Alt Del]

Mass poverty would exist w/o the industrial revolution. Some of the most populous socieities have been largely agrarian for significant portions of their history.

 

Can I ask for examples? I could say China is be such a country, as it's mostly agrarian. What can't go unsaid though, is that the system implanted on the east side of the country just aggravated the poverty of their compatriots on the west.

 

As such, yes, poverty would exist independently of the Revolution, but that just made things worse.

[Totenkopf]

India. Not so sure that IR made poverty worse so much as it concentrated it into cities. As a result, we're probably more aware of it b/c we see it more "up close and personal".

[Darth_Yuthura]

 

And was that a good thing? Surely, if you can make use of it's benefits. But the bad side effects that also exploded on the Industrial Revolution you're talking about - such as masses poverty - are undeniable and persists this day and age.

 

I would say globalization is a good thing because it makes life easier if we can conquer geography. What I mean by that is if we can replace walking with the locomotive, we can invest less effort for more benefit. Globalization has made our lives so much better and it's been growing as technology became available. Recent events have slowed and diminished its progress because fuel and energy are becoming the limiting factors now.

 

Automobiles were favored greatly because they were so much more convienient than trains or ships, but as fuel costs are rising, they are taking a back seat to mass transit. If the energy issue were solved, automobiles would forever eclipse public transit as the favored means of transportation. The reason for New York using mass transit was simply because it was not feasible for everyone to have cars in the compact urban environment.

 

Now that fuel costs are rising, there will be more cities like Portland switching to the most desirable form of transportation... which would be the cheapest and most efficient. I think that the prefect energy would keep this from happening in the US... and I'm all for mass transit taking over for crowded cites.

[SW01]

I would think the United States government would kill to bring out this technology rather than conceal it! How many times has America, along with the rest of us in the developed Western nations, been nearly brought to its knees because of oil costs?

 

Even if some kind of corruption at the highest levels prevented America from taking on such an energy source, there would indeed be plenty of other nations ready to capitalise. Here in the UK, we are moving away from coal and oil, and towards the renewable energies and nuclear fission. The EU as a whole would be likely to take it on (not sure about your comment on Germany, Darth_Yuthura), and I'm certain the old Soviet bloc would love such an advantage.

 

How would it change the world? Whichever government implements it first would become the undisputed power in global politics.

 

Also, in response to Ctrl Alt Del's query, Britain is a prime example of poverty reduced by the industrial revolution. It was the rise of the working and middle classes, and lifted many who found new work as factory workers out of abject poverty as farm labourers.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I would think the United States government would kill to bring out this technology rather than conceal it! How many times has America, along with the rest of us in the developed Western nations, been nearly brought to its knees because of oil costs?

 

Even if some kind of corruption at the highest levels prevented America from taking on such an energy source, there would indeed be plenty of other nations ready to capitalise. Here in the UK, we are moving away from coal and oil, and towards the renewable energies and nuclear fission. The EU as a whole would be likely to take it on (not sure about your comment on Germany, Darth_Yuthura), and I'm certain the old Soviet bloc would love such an advantage.

 

How would it change the world? Whichever government implements it first would become the undisputed power in global politics.

 

Also, in response to Ctrl Alt Del's query, Britain is a prime example of poverty reduced by the industrial revolution. It was the rise of the working and middle classes, and lifted many who found new work as factory workers out of abject poverty as farm labourers.

 

I don't think most innovation comes from governments, they come from private individuals or corporations. If a new energy emerges, it would not bode well for many corporations other than the ones who have it. If it's in a rival's best interest to restrain the technology, they would do what they could to stop it. It's in many people's best interests to have a sustainable source of energy, but those who have resources and money wouldn't mind selling out America if it helped them.

 

General Motors once made a huge past investment that would benefit the company for the short run, but would harm it once oil prices became too high. Although the company is suffering, the board members who made the choice reaped profits and then left the company to deal with the long term consequences... it doesn't matter to them anymore.

 

Everything in America revolves around money. Even a seemingly perfect energy may not be a desirable investment.

[SW01]

I don't think most innovation comes from governments, they come from private individuals or corporations.

 

Indeed, but (many) governments have most clout in bringing about sweeping changes in areas such as energy supply. At least, large-scale energy supply is controlled at the government level in most countries.

 

If such a power source was found, the global bidding war would be...interesting...to say the least.

[ForeverNight]

As I've said, we've already had countless opportunities to stop using gas, but for some reason our government (and oil companies) never take any interest in them.[/Quote]

 

I find it interesting that nobody has pointed this out before, but maybe, just maybe, it has to deal with the fact that Oil is currently be most efficient source of energy we have on hand. Nothing else is as efficient, nothing.

 

But, anyway... If we had a "perfect" source of energy... Well, if it was the small-battery like idea that Arc proposed, than I imagine that you wouldn't be buying the UNLIMITED version, but the LIMITED edition.

 

The battery-like-thing would likely have some limiting factor to it, if it could be found and reduced so that you need to purchase one every 3-5 years... the price of it could go down because the Power Companies would have designed it to do this and produce more, driving down cost.

 

So, you're not going to be paying EW's 1000USD for it, it'll probably be a chunk of change, but it will still provide a reoccuring profit for the Energy Companies who would then produce it because it yields... PROFIT.

 

Would War stop? Heck, no!

 

Would Poverty be eliminated? Nope.

 

Would the world suddenly become a safer place? Just like when the USSR fell, nope.

 

Would the world become a better place? More than likely.

[Ray Jones]

To decrease pollution is more important than keeping the level of efficiency in the first place.

[ForeverNight]

Prove to me on a large scale model that the Pollution emitted by a Gasoline Powered Car is The Most Damaging Pollution that we can easily fix and I'll agree that we should look into something else with more fervor. (We should always be working to improve stuff!)

 

It's like the Global Warming thing... I've yet to see a Large Scale Model that can prove that it's manmade CO2 doing it..

[Darth_Yuthura]

I find it interesting that nobody has pointed this out before, but maybe, just maybe, it has to deal with the fact that Oil is currently be most efficient source of energy we have on hand. Nothing else is as efficient, nothing.

 

Oil has not been the most efficient source of energy... you have to define it before you make such a claim. It is not the most profitable energy in the US, nuclear could be even better. It is not at this time because all US nuclear reactors are riddled with financial flaws that caused wastes in funds and delays in construction.

 

If the US were to switch to nuclear energy in the same manner as Europe, it would be the most profitable energy in the long run. At the current time, coal would be the best choice, but its price is rising and will soon be eclipsed by nuclear and renewable energies.

 

Oil DOES have the advantage of being used on a small scale powerplant, such as a car engine. It however is much more limited than coal, so we have to transition away from it eventually. The sooner we do, the easier the transition. Cars only run on gasoline, but an electric vehicle can essentially use any energy.

 

Prove to me on a large scale model that the Pollution emitted by a Gasoline Powered Car is The Most Damaging Pollution that we can easily fix and I'll agree that we should look into something else with more fervor. (We should always be working to improve stuff!)

 

It's like the Global Warming thing... I've yet to see a Large Scale Model that can prove that it's manmade CO2 doing it..

 

Electric motors are always more efficient than gasoline engines. That's why hybrid vehicles are so efficient. Large scale power plants are designed to generate the maximum amount of energy on the lowest amount of fuel... they are virtually always the most efficient powerplants there are. If a car uses electricity... even if it's just as efficient as the powerplant, you can at least choose where you restrict pollution. Cars always pollute their surroundings, they can't avoid that.

[Ray Jones]

Prove to me on a large scale model that the Pollution emitted by a Gasoline Powered Car is The Most Damaging Pollution that we can easily fix and I'll agree that we should look into something else with more fervor.

Why? If there was a fuel or energy source creating significantly less pollution, it can't be wrong to start reducing pollution there, can it?

 

It's like the Global Warming thing... I've yet to see a Large Scale Model that can prove that it's manmade CO2 doing it..

I don't need large scale models to understand that the less pollution I cause the better.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Why? If there was a fuel or energy source creating significantly less pollution, it can't be wrong to start reducing pollution there, can it?

 

I don't need large scale models to understand that the less pollution I cause the better.

 

Most would opt for less pollution if it could be avoided. However, pollution has almost no bearing to a CEO of a corporation. The only reason a corporation would pay to reduce pollution is to avoid lawsuits.

 

As much as saving the planet should matter to a CEO, it wouldn't matter if 99% of the world was contaminated if he could afford to live on that 1%. The only thing that would end pollution is if the clean energy is the better deal. Pollution doesn't matter to those with power unless it directly impacts them... and they can pay to avoid it.

 

It also gets down to the diffusion of responsibility. If you knew your acts would make all the difference, you'd be more likely to act. If you represent only 1/300,000,000 of the US, would you believe that your efforts would show? Many would say 'yes,' but they often behave as if they mean 'no.'

[Ray Jones]

As far as I know not only CEOs drive cars.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I think I'm thinking what the rest of you are thinking, mainly: super vibrator.

[Darth_Yuthura]

As far as I know not only CEOs drive cars.

 

As far as I know, not many middle class Americans fly on private jets. I don't know if this is directed at my post, but upper class citizens don't give a **** about the environment if it doesn't impact them. Because CEO's don't have to live in the polluted areas of their companies, it doesn't influence them if their factories in South Korea poison everything around them. Pollution only affects corporations if their lands are spoiled for business or through lawsuits. Other than that... pollution doesn't matter to CEO's.

[Ray Jones]

Pollution does not stop at some border or company fences. Also, when we talk about cars and their pollution, we're practically talking about "all around the planet", because theyld mainly pollute the air.

 

And why should you not care about how you can reduce pollution just because some CEO or rich man does not?

[Darth_Yuthura]

Pollution does not stop at some border or company fences. Also, when we talk about cars and their pollution, we're practically talking about "all around the planet", because theyld mainly pollute the air.

 

And why should you not care about how you can reduce pollution just because some CEO or rich man does not?

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't. I'm just stating that we likely won't.

 

The US has the best air quality in the world, but that only comes because other locations that make our manufactured goods take the greatest impact. There are many cities in China filled with factories that make goods that the rest of the world demands.

 

The issue on pollution from factories in America is technically solved by manufacturing elsewhere. However, because the regulations on pollution in China are lower than in the US, they suffer the greatest impact because we don't manufacture most of our own goods in America. To a CEO of a manufacturing corporation, the problem is solved. To the average American, the problem is also solved.

 

The most dangerous forms of pollution are not those we directly cause ourselves; they're what we don't know about that originate in China, India, and Korea.